A lot of people (like me) will use the iPad as an e-reader, among other things. It’s a good opportunity to play around with what a e-book actually can be, since the iPad offers things that Kindle can’t (color, animation…). I vote for more like this, please:
It’s in the iTunes store here.
Jeremy scooped me in his recent post where he commented on a recent SXSW panel on social search that included Marc Vermut, Brynn Evans, Max Ventilla, Ash Rust, and Scott Prindle. Jeremy pointed out that in addition to asking for help and embarking on a solitary search, was the possibility (discussed many times on this blog) of embarking on (an exploratory) search together. Searching together, collaboratively, is often appropriate when faced with exploratory (rather than known-item, factiod, or trending topic) information needs. Collaboration works best when information needs are shared, and when the results need to be created rather than merely re-discovered.
In an exchange on Twitter, Brynn pointed out that instances of true collaborative search comprised less than 10% of the instances she and colleagues had recorded in their study of Mechanical Turk respondents. But that argument misses the point.
Our friend Takashi Matsumoto, (who built the Post-Bit system with us here at FXPAL) built a cubic display called Z-agon with colleagues at the Keio Media Design Laboratory. Takashi points us at this video of a very nicely realized cubic display (well, five-sided, but still). It’s called pCubee: a Perspective-Corrected Handheld Cubic Display and it comes from the Human Communications Technology Lab at the University of British Columbia. Some of you may have seen a version of this demoed at ACM Multimedia 2009; it will also be at CHI 2010. Longer and more detailed video is here.
I have a question. It’s a general question, directed at anyone and everyone.
When one is building an Information Retrieval system, one uses target objective function(s) that give an indication of the performance of the system, and designs the system (algorithms, interfaces, etc.) toward those targets. Sometimes, those functions are open and well understood. Other times, those functions are proprietary and hidden.
My question is: Does it do the users of an IR system a service or disservice to hide from them the function that is being optimized? Or is it completely neutral? In other words, does the user have to understand, or at least be given the chance to understand, what it is that the system is trying to do for them in order to get the best value out of that system? Or can a user get results just as good without having to have a clear mental model of what the retrieval engine is trying to do? In short, does it matter if the user does not understand what the system is trying to do for him or her?
Can someone point me to research that may have looked at this question? If one were trying to publish original research on the topic, how would one go about designing an experiment in which both (1) this hypothesis is tested, and (2) done so in a way that generalizes, or at least hints at possible generalization?
We are happy to see that the summer issue of the AIEDAM journal is now published (editors: Ellen Yi-Luen Do and Mark D. Gross). It contains our article on the electronic-paper-based Post-Bits system, “Prototyping a tangible tool for design: Multimedia e-paper sticky notes.”
So, what are Post-Bits? We were looking for new ways to use e-paper, and at the same time, we were (and are) very interested in tangible tools for enhancing all kinds of work. This project started when Takashi Matsumoto interned here at FXPAL. You can see Takashi talking about Post-Bits in the video below the fold: